{GEORGE IV. 1820–1821}
Accession of George IV...... Declaration of the King,
&c. Dissolution of Parliament..... Cato-Street
Conspiracy..... Meeting of Parliament..... Bills for
amending the Criminal Code..... Education Bill..... Motion
for a Committee on the Corn Laws..... Motion for a Committee
respecting Free Trade..... The Civil List, &c. Message
respecting the Queen..... Trial of the Queen.
ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
{A.D. 1820}
GEORGE IV. had long governed the empire, so that the acquisition of the
crown effected no other change than that of the title of regent to
king. The assumption of this new dignity, however, was followed by
perplexities of great magnitude. He had long repudiated his wife, now
Queen Caroline, and she had been living in foreign lands as an exile.
This step had alienated the affections of his people from him; and at
his accession to the throne, when he was induced to extend the limits of
the hostility he had displayed towards his consort, they became, out
of sympathy for an injured and helpless female, still more embittered
against him. His accession to the throne, however, gave Caroline an
opportunity of retaliation, which, as will be seen, she was not backward
in exercising.
DECLARATION OF THE KING, ETC.
The first public act of the new king was to summon a council, at which
the emblems of office, having been surrendered by the officers of the
crown, were immediately restored to their former possessors. His majesty
then made a declaration, in which, after having alluded to the demise
of his father, and his own long exercise of the royal prerogative,
he remarked that “nothing but the support which he had received from
parliament and the country, in times most eventful and circumstances
most arduous, could inspire him with that confidence which his present
situation demanded.” He added, that he trusted the experience of the
past would satisfy all classes of his people, that it would ever be his
desire to promote their prosperity and happiness, as well as to maintain
unimpaired the religion, laws, and liberties of the kingdom. This
declaration, at the request of the council, was made public; and on
Monday, the 31st of January, the king was proclaimed, first, under the
portico of the palace, and then at various stations throughout his good
city of London. On the same day the members of parliament were sworn in,
and they adjourned to the 17th of February. In the meantime, however,
alarming reports arose concerning his majesty’s health. He was attacked
by a severe inflammation of the chest, which had lately proved fatal to
his brother; and his physicians were in doubt about the result. Their
forebodings, however, proved groundless; after the lapse of a week he
was declared out of danger, although it was a considerable time before
his health was re-established.
DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.
According to the principles of the British constitution, the demise of
the crown is followed by a dissolution of parliament within the next
six months. On the meeting of parliament a royal message announced an
immediate design of calling a new parliament, and invited them to concur
in the necessary arrangements for carrying on the public service during
the interval, Loyal addresses, suitable to the occasion, were voted
_nem. con._; and next day ministers obtained a pledge that the desired
measure for the wants of government should be adopted. When the
requisite votes of money were proposed, however, Mr. Hume, that
pertinacious interrogator, took occasion to ask a very embarrassing
question. In the necessary alteration of the form of prayer for the
royal family, by his majesty’s command, the name of the queen was
omitted. Mr. Hume desired to know whether any provision was to be made
for her as queen? As Princess of Wales, her former allowance had of
course ceased on the death of the late king: was she, as Queen of Great
Britain, to be left to wander in beggary through foreign lands? or
would parliament make a suitable provision for the maintenance of her
dignified station? Lord Castlereagh endeavoured to evade this subject,
and to elude an acknowledgment of the queen’s title, by stating that the
“exalted personage” should suffer no pecuniary difficulties. In reply,
Mr. Tierney, by commenting on the omission of her majesty’s name from
the liturgy, on the rumours in circulation against her character, and on
the report of a commission sent abroad to collect evidence against her,
strove to force ministers into a direct consideration of the question;
but they still preserved a cautious silence. Other members also
endeavoured to provoke them to a discussion on the question; but they
still adhered to their text—the required supplies, and these were
suffered to pass without a division. This done, parliament was dissolved
by commission on the 28th of February.
CATO-STREET CONSPIRACY.
In his speech on the occasion of the dissolution of parliament, the
lord chancellor referred, in vindication of their late enactments, to a
sanguinary conspiracy which had just been detected, and which, he said,
was sufficient to open the eyes of the most incredulous to the dangers
of the country. The conspiracy referred to was one of the most desperate
that could have been conceived by the perverse mind of man. It had
for its object the overthrow of the government, and the irremediable
confusion of national affairs, by the assassination of the whole
cabinet. The chief leader of this plot was Arthur Thistlewood, who had
once served as a subaltern in the West Indies. He had imbibed republican
principles in America, and these had been confirmed by a residence in
France during the darkest period of the revolution. He had recently been
tried as an accomplice of the elder Watson; and when he was acquitted he
sent a challenge to Lord Sidmouth, for which offence he was sentenced
to a fine and imprisonment. On his liberation he determined to take
revenge, and that of the most ample nature. For this purpose he gathered
around him men of bold daring and reckless characters. The principal of
these accomplices were, Ings, a butcher; Davidson, a Creole; and Brunt
and Tidd, shoemakers. After a series of meetings the united band of
these desperadoes determined to destroy his majesty’s ministers. Their
plan was this:—that forty or fifty of them were to commit the tragical
act under a pledge of forfeiting their own lives should their resolution
fail them; and that other detachments were to seize on the field-pieces
at the artillery-ground, and at the London Station in Gray’s Inn, and
then to occupy the Mansion-House and the Bank, and to set fire to
the buildings of the metropolis at different places. This plot was
determined upon on, Sunday, the 20th of February; and it was to be
put into execution on the following Wednesday, when there was to be a
cabinet-dinner at Lord Harrowby’s, in Grosvenor Square. It was agreed
that a single conspirator should go to Lord Harrowby’s with a note
addressed to his lordship; that when the outer door should be opened
others should rush in; and that while some proceeded to bind the
domestics, the rest should perpetrate the horrid massacre. The heads
of Lord Sidmouth and Castlereagh were to be brought away as trophies of
their success. The whole of the Wednesday was passed in preparations for
this fearful tragedy. Arms and ammunition were provided; proclamations
were written, ready to be affixed to those edifices which were devoted
to the flames; and strict watch was kept on Lord Harrowby’s mansion, in
order to ascertain whether any of the police or military entered it or
were concealed in its vicinity. Towards the evening the conspirators
crept towards their place of rendezvous, and by six o’clock all had
assembled. The place of rendezvous was a stable in Cato-street, near the
Edgeware-road; a building which consisted of two upper rooms, the ascent
to which was by a ladder. In the largest of these rooms the conspirators
were seen, by the glimmering light of one or two small candles, making
ready for their bloody enterprise. They were rejoicing in the speedy
prospect of revenge; but their projected crime had been unfolded. Among
them was one Edwards, who, though a pretended colleague, was a spy. This
man had given them the information of the cabinet-dinner, and then gave
the cabinet information of all the proceedings of the conspirators.
Every precaution was adopted by ministers to lull suspicion; and the
preparations for dinner had been going on as though the ministers would
really assemble. By this means the conspirators were detected with arms
in their hands. Their capture was effected by a party of police, headed
by Mr. Birnie, the magistrate, and supported by a detachment of the
Coldstream Guards. The conspirators were on the point of starting for
Grosvenor-square, when on a sudden the police entered the room in which
they were assembled, and called upon them to surrender. Smithers, an
active police-officer, rushed forward to secure the ringleader; but he
was pierced through with the desperado’s sword, and fell. The lights
were now extinguished, and the conflict became general, while some of
the gang endeavoured to make their escape. Although, indeed, the police
were soon aided by thirty soldiers of the Coldstream Guards, nine of
the conspirators only were taken. Thistlewood himself escaped; but, in
consequence of £1,000 being offered for his apprehension, he was
seized next morning in bed. Others were apprehended also during the
two following days; and on the 27th of March true bills, on a charge
of high-treason, were returned against eleven of the prisoners.
Thistlewood, Ings, Tidd, Brunt, and Davidson were severally tried and
condemned, the other six being permitted to withdraw their plea and to
plead guilty; five of them received sentence of transportation for
life, and the other, who appeared to have been ignorant of the
destined purpose of the meeting in Cato-street, received a free pardon.
Thistlewood and his condemned associates were brought to the scaffold;
and he, with three of them, died with great hardihood, glorying in their
purpose, regretting its failure, and declaring themselves martyrs to the
prostituted name of liberty.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Although the country was still in a disturbed state, and seditious
meetings were held on every hand, yet the elections proceeded without
any acts of outrageous violence. The result of the elections was that
opposition gained a slight accession of strength; but the new parliament
appeared to take the complexion of that by which it had been preceded.
Its members began to assemble on the 21st of April; but the session was
not opened until the 27th of that month. On that day the king declared
in his speech that he should follow the example of his father in
solicitude for the welfare of the nation, and that the regal dignity
should be supported without any additional burdens on the people. He
expressed a determination to maintain public peace and tranquillity,
lamented the pressure of distress and the prevalence of sedition, and
concluded with a hope that the misguided multitude might be brought
back to a sense of their errors. The usual addresses were carried
unanimously.
BILLS FOR AMENDING THE CRIMINAL CODE.
Early this session Sir James Mackintosh moved for leave to bring in six
bills, founded on the suggestions of the committee appointed by the last
parliament to consider the important subject of the amendment of our
criminal code. Three of these bills passed into law. The first of these
was to repeal the act by which private stealing in shops, to the
amount of forty shillings, was made punishable with death; the penalty,
however, was still retained against those who should so steal to the
amount of ten pounds and upwards; by which it would appear that our
legislators conceived that a man’s life was not equal in value to such
an amount. The second went to repeal certain acts which denounced death
to any Egyptian who should remain in England one year, on all
notorious thieves who should take up their residence in Cumberland or
Northumberland, and on every one who should be found disguised in the
mint, or injuring Westminster Bridge. The third repealed various clauses
in certain acts, which constituted the offences specified in them
capital, and which were converted into simple felonies. Among the
offences thus modified were, that of taking away any woman, whether
maid, wife, or widow, for the sake of her fortune; the receiving of
stolen goods; the destroying of trees, breaking down banks of rivers,
and wounding of cattle; the sending of threatening letters; and all the
capital offences created by the marriage act and laws of bankruptcy.
For these offences, transportation, imprisonment, or hard labour
were substituted for death, at the discretion of the judges. Thus the
statute-book of England was purified from many grievous stains; but
it was still blotted by many imperfections, and even to this day it
contains much that requires purging by enlightened legislators.
EDUCATION BILL.
After having rendered important service to his country by his efforts
to establish a system for detecting and remedying abuses in charitable
funds and establishments, Mr. Brougham brought forward his plan for
the education of the poor. This subject, however, was not destined to
receive the concurrence of parties at this period, though the object in
view was generally admitted to be desirable. The chief difficulty, and
that which induced Mr. Brougham to abandon the bill, arose from the
dissenters. They opposed it because they conceived that some of the
enactments originated in imperfect information respecting the dissenters
in this country, and because, overlooking their numbers, property, and
intelligence, and religious character, the whole affair was to be under
the management of the clergy of the established church. The consequence
of this opposition was that, after the first reading of the bill on the
11th of July, it was abandoned. But this failure only seemed to give an
additional incentive to the zeal of Mr. Brougham, and he subsequently
reaped the fruit of his labours.
MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE ON THE CORN-LAWS.
During this session Mr. Holme Sumner moved for a select committee to
take into consideration the agricultural state of the country. The
table of the house was loaded with petitions on this subject from all
quarters. The petitions complained of distress; and their general prayer
was for additional restrictions, fora high permanent duty in place of a
limited prohibition, The debates arising from the motion occupied much
time and attention. It was seconded by Mr. Western, and supported by
Mr. Gooch, who repeated the statement, that without protection the
agriculturists of this country were unable to compete with foreign
growers; that the act of 1815 afforded no protection; and that measures
more effectual were indispensable. Mr. Robinson, president of the board
of trade, in reply, deprecated the motion as tending to excite hopes
which could not be realized. He was followed by Messrs. Baring and
Ricardo, the latter of whom entered into a luminous exposition of the
principles of political economy, and condemned all restrictions on the
freedom of the corn-trade as injurious in their tendency. The landed
interests, however, prevailed, and the motion for the committee was
carried. On the following evening, however, ministers succeeded in
neutralizing its effects, by proposing that its inquiries should be
limited to the best mode of ascertaining the weekly average of corn
prices. This was opposed as a trick of state; but it passed by a large
majority, and every material alteration of the corn-laws was deferred
till a more convenient season.
MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE RESPECTING FREE TRADE.
A commercial question of still greater importance than that of the
corn-laws was also, during this session, introduced into parliament.
Petitions from the city of London, and from Glasgow, prayed for free
trade; and Mr. Baring, who presented that of the London merchants to the
commons, insisted that freedom from restriction is calculated to give
the utmost extension to foreign trade, as well as the best direction to
the capital and industry of the country. No formal motion was made in
the commons on this subject; but in the lords, on the 26th of May, Lord
Lansdowne moved for a committee of inquiry concerning the foreign
trade of the empire. This proposal elicited a speech from the Earl
of Liverpool, in which his lordship, as head of the administration,
declared his assent to the principles of free trade, expressing his
conviction that it would have been better for the world had such
principles always been acted upon, and advising the recognition of such
exceptions only, as the policy of the world and the laws of the country
dictated. The motion was carried unanimously.
THE CIVIL LIST, ETC.
The civil list was settled at £1,057,000; and on the 19th of June the
chancellor of the exchequer produced his financial statement. There
was an increase both in the army and navy estimates, owing to the
augmentation of force, necessary from the peculiar state of the country.
The sum total for the service of the year, including the interest of the
debt, was estimated at £50,500,000. The ways and means proposed to
meet this large expenditure were, exclusive of permanent revenues, a
continuation of the usual annual taxes; the sum of £2,500,000 from the
produce of the temporary excise duties, which had remained in force
during the war; £240,000 arising from the lottery; £260,000 from
old naval stores; exchequer bills for £7,000,000 to be funded; and
£12,000,000 from the sinking-fund. But all questions, whether financial,
commercial, or political, were swallowed up in one absorbing topic—this
was the arrival of Queen Caroline from Italy.
MESSAGE RESPECTING THE QUEEN
Queen Caroline had retired to Italy to avoid persecution in 1814, by the
advice of Mr. Canning. The persecutions to which she had been subjected
arose in a quarter from which she least expected it—from her husband,
the regent. Her name was not often mentioned in England during her
absence; but though the public seemed regardless of her existence,
subsequent disclosures showed that she had not been forgotten by her
persecutors. Spies had been sent into Italy to watch her conduct; and
the result was that she was finally charged with living in open adultery
with an Italian courier, named Bergami, a man whom she had raised from
that station to the first office in her household. In consequence of
these movements, Mr. Brougham, her legal adviser, made a proposal, in
June, 1819, to Lord Liverpool, that the income of £35,000 per annum
enjoyed by her royal highness, but which was to expire on the death of
his majesty, George III., should be secured to her for life, provided
she consented to remain abroad without assuming the title of Queen of
England. This singular proposition was stated at the time to be made
without the knowledge of the princess; and the reply given was, that
when the king came to give attention to the subject, there would be no
indisposition to acquiesce in such terms, provided she would give
her consent. Thus matters rested till she became Queen of England.
Government then thought it necessary that some line of conduct should
be taken regarding her, which might prevent disclosures that were on all
accounts to be deprecated, and a compromise, founded on Mr. Brougham’s
former proposal, was transmitted to her: she was to receive £50,000 on
condition of renouncing the royal title, and residing in foreign lands.
She had heard of the death of her father, and the accession of her
husband in February, while at Rome, and she immediately assumed the
royal title, and demanded a guard of honour from the papal government.
This demand was not complied with, because no official communication
had been received from the king or his ministers on the subject: his
holiness, indeed, represented that he did not know whether the Queen of
England was in Rome or not. Incensed at this reply, her majesty drew
up a narrative, dated Match 16th, relating her wrongs, and in which she
stated her determination to repair to England. This document, together
with a letter written by her to Lord Liverpool, demanding that her name
should be inserted in the liturgy, and that a palace should be prepared
for her on her arrival, appeared in the papers about the middle of
April, and a general idea prevailed that she was rapidly proceeding
towards England. Various reasons, however, concurred which induced her
to prolong her sojourn at Rome, so that she did not arrive at Geneva
till the 9th of May. From Geneva she dispatched a letter to Mr. Brougham
requiring his attendance either there, or at one of the sea-ports. In
consequence of this communication, Messrs. Denman and Brougham, with
other friends of the queen, held a consultation, in which they agreed
to request her to repair to Calais without loss of time. Her majesty
quitted Geneva instantly on receiving this advice, and in her route
thither she was joined by Lady Anne Hamilton, who had formerly been in
her service, and by Alderman Wood, one of the representatives of the
city of London. On the 20th she arrived at Villeneuve le Roi, whence
she wrote two letters, one to the Duke of York, and the other to Lord
Liverpool, declaratory of her intention, to be in London within five
days, reiterating also her demand for a palace, and requesting that a
royal yacht might be in readiness at Calais to convey her to England. At
St. Oroers she was met by Mr. Brougham, and Lord Hutchinson, a personal
friend of the king, who was entrusted with a confidential communication.
The fact is, ministers had determined, from the evidence in their
possession, that the queen could not be received in England with the
honours due to royalty, and Lord Hutchinson was sent to intimate this,
and to make a similar proposition to that which had before been made.
Ministers proposed to settle £50,000 per annum on her for life, subject
to such conditions as the king might impose; which conditions Lord
Hutchinson stated he had reason to believe, were, that she was not to
assume the style and title of Queen of Great Britain, or any other title
attached to the royal family of England; and that she was not to reside
in England, or even to visit that country: the consequence of such a
visit would be an immediate message to parliament, and an entire end of
all compromise or negociation. The threatened message to parliament was
understood by the queen and her counsellors to signify that a public
charge of adultery would be exhibited against her; and, indignant at
such treatment, the proposal was rejected as one that could not be
listened to for a moment. Lord Hutchinson still made attempts at
negociation, but they were all vain; nothing could induce her to change
her purpose. Irritated by studied insults abroad; incensed by threats of
ministerial vengeance; brooding over the wrongs she had endured from one
who had promised before the altar of God to love and cherish her through
life; and, above all, assured of the popular support, she pursued her
way; and she reached the shores of England on the 6th of June. Although
government had made no preparation for her reception, the people’s
hearts gave her a ready welcome. Multitudes met her on the beach at
Dover, with loud acclamations, banners, and every sign of popular
enthusiasm. Her progress to London resembled a triumphal procession,
and she was met in the metropolis by 200,000 persons, all shouting her
welcome at the top of their voices. They would have conducted her at
once to Carlton House, but she was induced to go to Alderman Wood’s
mansion in South Audley Street, there to wait the issue of the matter.
The king was now obliged to take the field against a woman in, whose
favour the British people were generally interested. On the 6th of
June a message was read from the woolsack, communicating certain papers
relative to the conduct of her majesty since her departure from England,
which the king recommended to the immediate and serious attention of
their lordships. A similar message was also delivered to the commons:
and in both houses ministers expressed their intention of moving for
an address to the king, and a reference of the papers to a secret
committee on the following day. In the commons the minister was
anticipated on the 7th by Mr. Brougham, who presented a communication
from her majesty, setting forth that she had returned to England for the
purpose of maintaining her innocence and rights; protesting against any
secret tribunal appointed by her accusers; complaining of the insults
received from foreign courts, influenced by that of Great Britain; and
appealing to the justice of the commons of England. In reply, after
the cheers with which this document was received had subsided,
Lord Castlereagh said that ministers were neither persecutors nor
prosecutors: the king’s message was most gracious; and the secret
committee was only a preliminary step to ascertain whether there was any
case to proceed with. The trial should be, he added, if there was
any trial, open and honourable, Mr. Brougham strongly resisted the
appointment of the committee, since although not final, it must deeply
affect her majesty’s character. Mr. Canning vindicated the conduct of
ministers, and Mr. Wilberforce recommended delay, that, if possible,
some compromise might be entered into. In consequence of this suggestion
of Mr. Wilberforce the house adjourned to the Friday following; and
in the interval the queen, on the advice of her friends, made a
communication to Lord Liverpool, through Mr. Brougham, in which,
deferring to the expressed opinion of the house of commons, she declared
herself ready to take into consideration any arrangement consistent with
her dignity and honour. In reply, Lord Liverpool referred her to the
memorandum placed in the hands of her own attorney-general and the
queen declared that this document, which had been superseded by Lord
Hutchinson’s proposition, was now submitted to her for the first time.
She added that the recognition of her rank and privileges must form
the basis of any arrangement. In reply, ministers declared that any
proposition on the part of the king must have for its basis the queen’s
residence abroad. To this her majesty rejoined, that she was willing to
leave her cause in the hands of any person or persons of high station
and character, whom both parties might select; their decision being
subject to the approbation of parliament. This proposal was accepted.
On the part of the king the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh were
appointed, while Messrs. Brougham and Denman were appointed on behalf
of the queen. Meanwhile parliament, to give time for their negociations,
was further adjourned. The referees met on the 15th of June; but it was
all to no purpose. The protocol set forth that “the queen must not be
understood to admit nor the king to retract any position,” with which
insuperable barrier before them the negociations finished as they had
commenced: it was contended _in limine_, on her majesty’s behalf, that
her name should be inserted in the liturgy, and as this was refused by
the king, the conference was broken up. This failure in negociations was
reported on the 19th; but on the following day Mr. Wilberforce asked and
obtained further delay, in order that he might make a proposition, which
he conceived might set the matter at rest. This proposition was made on
the 22nd, and it consisted of two resolutions; one regretting the recent
failure of negociation, and the other soliciting her majesty to gratify
the house by conceding a few points, for the sake of an amicable
arrangement. Lord Archibald Hamilton moved as an amendment that the
queen’s name should be inserted in the liturgy, which was ably supported
by Sir Francis Burdett, who delivered a speech, censuring ministers,
which produced a great sensation in the house. In reply, Mr. Canning
stated, that, however much provoked by the honourable baronet’s speech,
he should abstain from entering the lists with him till a future day;
which determination produced a sarcastic retort from Mr. Tierney,
who observed, that, “as the better part of valour was discretion, he
commended Mr. Canning’s prudence, in postponing his defence of ministers
till the effect of Sir Francis’s speech was done away: the fact proved
that it was unanswerable.” Mr. Wilberforce’s motion, however, was
carried by three hundred and ninety-one against one hundred and
thirty-four. A deputation waited on the queen with the message of the
commons; but she peremptorily rejected their advice, and its members
were, on their return, hissed and hooted by the populace. Every hope of
conciliation being now at an end on the motion of Lord Castlereagh,
the commons voted a further adjournment, in order to leave initiatory
proceedings to the house of lords. But though the commons waited quietly
till their lordships made a further movement in the matter, the
country did not. The whole kingdom was turned into one great arena
of disputation, in which the innocence or the guilt of the queen was
advocated according to the different views of the people. Addresses were
sent to the queen from all quarters; and in answer to that presented by
the common-council of London, she made this declaration,—“In the many
and deep sorrows and afflictions with which it has pleased Providence
to visit me, I have derived unspeakable consolation from the zealous and
constant attachment of this warm-hearted, just, and generous people; to
live at home with, and to cherish whom, will be the chief happiness of
the remainder of my days.”
The secret committee made their report on the 4th of July. This report
stated that the charges appeared calculated so deeply to affect, not
only the honour of the queen, but also the dignity of the crown, that
in the opinion of the committee it was necessary they should become the
subject of a solemn inquiry, which might best be effected in the course
of a legislative proceeding. This was followed, on the 6th of July, by a
motion in the lords, moved by the Earl of Liverpool, for a bill of pains
and penalties; or an act which, according to precedents in former ages,
might pronounce the queen guilty of an adulterous intercourse; degrade
her from her exalted station; and dissolve the marriage between her and
the king. This bill was read a first time as a preliminary step to the
introduction of evidence, and then a copy of it was sent to her majesty
by the usher of the black rod. The day fixed for the second reading was
the 17th of August, on which day counsel appeared in support of the bill
and on behalf of the queen.
In the meantime addresses were presented to her from cities, towns, and
villages in every part of the United Kingdom. Encouraged by the popular
support, the queen took a house at Hammersmith, on the banks of
the Thames, and thither processions went every day, except Sundays,
numbering on an average 30,000 people. Eventually she was obliged to
appoint certain days in the week for receiving them: the other days were
employed in riding about the city and its environs, in which she was
always followed by a vast concourse of people. The king was, also,
compelled to endure some noise and bustle. In their processions to and
fro, the people generally stopped opposite his palace, but it was only
to show him the bitter feelings which they entertained towards him. So
unpopular had he become by this persecution of his wife, that he was
compelled to go from London to the cottage, and from the cottage to
London under cover of the night; and even then the people were on the
watch to salute him roughly as he passed.
TRIAL OF THE QUEEN.
On the 17th of August mobs of the most terrific description surrounded
the two houses of parliament, and filled every street in the vicinity.
In this state of things the lords took their places to try the queen:
the judges being requested to assist at the deliberations. The names of
the peers having been called over, Lord Liverpool moved the order of the
day for the second reading of the bill of pain and penalties. The Duke
of Leinster moved as an amendment that the order should be rescinded;
but this was negatived, and the Earl of Liverpool then moved that
counsel be called in and heard in support of the preamble of the bill.
On the appearance of the counsel Mr. Brougham obtained leave to state
his objections to the principles of the bill in its present state
of progress, which he did in a speech of great length, and with
extraordinary talent. Taking advantage of the popular feeling he
concluded in these terms:—“True it is, that your committee has reported
in favour of the bill, but that cannot pledge the house: and he is
the greatest of all fools who consults his apparent consistency at the
expense of his absolute ruin. The sooner you retrace the step into which
you may have been led at an unwary moment, the greater will be the
service you render to the country. If you decide that this bill ought
not to proceed, you will be the saviours of the state.” Mr. Denman
followed on the same side with a speech of great eloquence; and the
speeches of the queen’s counsel were answered by the king’s attorney and
solicitor-general. Mr. Brougham replied: urging a variety of arguments
in favour of his original proposition, and showing the impolicy of the
principle contended for by ministers. Successive attempts were made by
Lords King and Grey to stop all further proceedings; but their motions
were negatived, and the attorney-general was ordered by the lord
chancellor to state his case. His statement occupied two days, and the
examination of witnesses engaged the attention of the peers to the 6th
of September. The evidence in support of the bill was summed up on the
7th of September, and on the 9th an adjournment took place to the 3rd of
October, in consequence of an application from her majesty’s counsel. On
that day Mr. Brougham entered on the defence in a speech of great power;
and he was followed by Mr. Williams, who declared that he should be able
to rebut many of the prominent points sworn to in the prosecution by
the clearest testimony. The examination of the witnesses for the defence
lasted from the 5th of October to the 24th, and Mr. Denman proceeded to
sum up the evidence. At the conclusion of his speech he remarked:—“We
have fought the battles of morality, Christianity, and civilized society
throughout the world; and in the language of the dying warrior I may
say:—
‘In this glorious and well foughten field
We kept together in our chivalry.’
“While he (Mr. Brougham) was achieving the immortal victory, and the
illustrious triumph, protecting innocence and truth by the adamantine
shield of his prodigious eloquence, it has been my lot to discharge
only a few random arrows at the defeated champions of this disgraceful
cause.” Dr. Lushington followed on the 26th of October, with a luminous
view of the case, and the king’s attorney and solicitor-general replied.
The peers then debated, and on the 6th of November divided on the second
reading of the bill, Which was carried by one hundred and twenty-three
against ninety-five. Many peers entered strong protests; and a protest
was read from the queen by Lord Dacre, in which she made the most solemn
assertions of innocence. In this protest it was observed, that “unless
these unexampled proceedings should bring the bill before the commons,
the queen would make no reference whatever to the treatment experienced
by her during the last twenty-five years.” This _innuendo_ produced its
effects. The lords, indeed, now evidently began to tremble, lest they
should be precipitated into the gulf which by their recent vote they had
approached. It was felt, moreover, that the king did not come into court
“with clean hands;” and therefore when the divorce clause came under
discussion several peers, and among them several bishops, who considered
the queen guilty, declared their aversion on religious scruples, to
vote for it. The partisans of the queen, headed by Earl Grey, seized
the advantage offered to them by this difference of opinion among her
opponents, and they gave their strong support to it, and the clause was
carried. But by this movement the fate of the bill became evident. It
was read a third time by a majority of nine on the 10th of November; but
there was yet one question to be put,—“that this bill do now pass,”
and ministers shrunk from the point. The queen petitioned to be heard by
counsel against this final step; but Lord Liverpool, in reply, declared
that with so small a majority, in the actual state of public feeling,
he, and his colleagues felt bound to abandon the bill. A motion was made
that the question should be put off to that day six months, which was
carried; and thus ended, in defeat and disgrace, the domestic war
which George IV. had been carrying on for twenty-five years against
his consort. On the 29th of November, her majesty went in state to St.
Paul’s to return public thanks, on which occasion she was surrounded by
such multitudes as to make it difficult for her to reach the cathedral.
The general joy was also manifested by illuminations, ringing of bells,
firing of cannon, and the presentation of addresses of congratulation.
But Queen Caroline was soon destined to see her popularity wane. Tired
with the constant rout, orders were given that addresses should only
be presented on one day of the week; and she gradually withdrew
herself from the leaders of the whig party. This was the signal for the
desertion of her cause. What Queen Caroline was doing soon became as
indifferent to the people as what other members of the royal family were
doing, and her final fate an object of curiosity more than of interest.
At the close of the trial of Queen Caroline, parliament was prorogued to
the 23rd of January.